A
negation is frequently used in persuasive communications to
define a brand's identity and to influence consumers' product
expectations.

For example,
General Motors used the slogan "This is not your father's
Oldsmobile" to launch an annual model, and Kraft's
DiGiorno brand of frozen pizza announced "It's
not delivery — it's DiGiorno." Negations
often appear in other contexts as well. An American oil firm
issued the following press release: "Occidental has not
and does not provide lethal aid to Columbia's armed
forces."

There
is an emerging understanding of how such negations operate
in an advertising context. Initially, the affirmation is elaborated
upon ("It's delivery, it's DiGiorno").
Then additional cognitive resources may be allocated to correcting
this affirmation by linking it to the negator ("It's
not delivery"). This two-step processing of a negation
is referred to as the affirmation then correction view.

The affirmation
then correction view makes several predictions. If substantial
resources are devoted to thinking about the message, a negation
is interpreted accurately, and if few resources are allocated
the negation is not processed. Between these extremes, message
recipients are likely to process the affirmation without the
correction.

Two colleagues
(Sue Jung Grant and Prashant Malaviya) and I tested these
predictions by presenting respondents with a toothpaste print
ad in which the target brand was compared to a competitor
on 10 cosmetic, medicinal and other benefits. The target brand
dominated the competitor on three benefits, was dominated
by the competitor on three benefits, and there was parity
on the remaining four benefits.

One of
the benefits on which the target brand supposedly dominated
pertained to the ease of using the dispenser. For some respondents,
the message indicated that the dispenser was "not difficult
to use," a phrasing that might be used so as not to
over-claim the benefit. In the other condition, the dispenser
was described as "not easy to use." This claim
was of interest not because it might be used in advertising,
but because it provided a contrast condition to interpret
how negations influence judgments.

When we
prompted substantial resource allocation to the key benefit
(e.g., by placing the "not difficult" or "not
easy to use" feature early in the feature list, or by
giving message recipients substantial time to think about
the message), the target toothpaste brand was evaluated more
favorably when the claim was that the dispenser "was
not difficult to use" than when it was "not easy
to use." When resource allocation was reduced the reverse
occurred: People were more favorable toward the brand when
its dispenser was not easy to use than when it was not difficult
to use. Message recipients accessed the affirmation but not
the negation. Interestingly, this outcome occurred even though
when asked, message recipients were able to accurately replay
the dispenser information they were given. It was in memory,
but not used in making a brand evaluation.

Applying
this observation to the examples cited earlier, people who
were not paying full attention to the message might have come
away with the thought that DiGiorno is delivery and that Occidental
provides lethal aid.

Support
for the affirmation then correction process suggests that
advertisers should be cautious not only in using negations,
but more generally in the use of negative advertising. In
most instances, American consumers are motivated by the achievement
of favorable outcomes in purchasing products. This orientation
prompts a focus on affirmation, and messages that adopt this
focus are more likely to be effective than ones that use negations
and negative claims.

At the
same time, there are situations, such as in voting for political
candidates and selecting tech services, where consumer motivation
is to prevent a negative outcome from occurring. In these
circumstances, negations and negative advertising are likely
to prove effective.